ilkka

I have the Zuiko 2/150 and a 1.4 extender. It focuses pretty fast on an E-3 but it is slooooow on the OMD. I would wait for the Lumix

2.8/150 if you need AF. Meanwhile the Lumix or Zuiko zooms that go to 300 are a bit slow both in aperture and focusing speed, but not

too bad.

<p>Yes I would. And I would buy a Ricoh GXR module with a b/w only sensor. I hope Leica is not the only one because I cannot justify spending that much money on b/w only camera.</p>

<p>Superfine is a little bit less compressed than the fine setting but there is actually very little if any difference between the two. Except that superfine uses a lot more memory. For most normal uses, fine is just right. If you want the best possible quality, you should always shoot raw in any case. And to shoot raw plus superfine does not really make any sense at all.</p>

<p>Superfine is a little bit less compressed than the fine setting but there is actually very little if any difference between the two. Except that superfine uses a lot more memory. For most normal uses, fine is just right. If you want the best possible quality, you should always shoot raw in any case. And to shoot raw plus superfine does not really make any sense at all.</p>

<p>My experiences mirror Greg's response pretty much one to one. I have tried several. Some worked okay, but eventually died much earlier than the originals. Some did not work just about at all. Some started to swell or the tape started to peel so they stuck in camera. I am sure there are good batteries out there. Some may even be made by the same manufacturer that makes the originals. But it is hard to find which one is which. So far my luck has been maybe 1/3 still doing okay after six months of use. Based on that, the price should be about a quarter to be worth the price, but is it worth the risk and hassle even then?</p>

<p>I don't have an X100. But I do have an SF20 and M6, and several digital cameras. The SF20 is actually quite a nice, simple flash unit. It works well on manual or normal auto mode and should work with all cameras, also the X100. Does the X100 have a dedicated flash? Does it have the extra connectors in the hot shoe? Do they mess up with the TTL circuits in the flash? They should not if the flash is on manual or plain auto. In TTL it could cause trouble. If you use manual or plain auto flash, you should set the camera on manual exposure and set a suitable flash syncro speed (or slower if you want ambient light) and then either set the aperture based on the auto flash F/stop or calculate (or meter) the F/stop based on the guide number (20m in ISO100). If you just put the flash on top of the camera and continue in aperture priority, the camera does not know you have a flash and exposes based on the available light so exposure can get very long. Don't know if this is the problem you are having.</p>

<p>Isn't there a Zeiss 1.8/24 lens designed for this camera? Adapted wide angle lenses seldom work well in digital because they were designed for film and in wide angles the light comes much more from the side instead of straight-up as in longer lenses. That messes the sensor/micro lens setup. If you are picky on quality, the new Zeiss should do well. If you are picky on wanting an old manual focus second hand lens, then that is a different story. 50 is a nice angle of view. But so is 35. If I had to choose one, I would probably get the 35. It is a classic in fixed lens cameras. Of course the 50 is the old classic, so again it comes to own preference. Subject matter affects a lot as well. For portarits I would much rather get a 50. For people in context, wider is maybe better like you said. For landscapes 35 or even 28 might be better overall.</p>

<p>Last time I looked, Olympus does not have any viewfinderless Pen cameras. That ended with the first original digital Pen. After that all have had a port for EVF and they now have two versions of it. Panasonic has a full range with simplest (GF-5) having no EVF and no way to attach one, all others have either port for EVF or a built in EVF. Olympus now has the same with separate EVF in all Pens and the OM-D with fixed EVF. What possible harm can it do to customers to give the option to buy a $200 accessory if you want one? Sony has it. Ricoh has it. Now Leica also has it. I understand Canon's logic, which is a bit like Nikon's but more extreme. Make the mirrorless system so basic and simple that serious photographers don't bother with it, thus not threatening the sales of low end DSLRs. But even serious photographers sometimes need a small camera. And because they are serious, they want good image quality and good controls. And yes, they usually want to see what they are composing.</p>

<p>Interesting idea, but a bit boring though. I remember reading in Helmut Newton's biography that he wanted to make some pictures of his old house before selling it and thought the empty rooms would look too boring so he put a nekkid woman in there. That was obviously his style, but clearly made it more interesting to the general public as well. Not by any means suggesting that you should do the same.</p>

<p>"equivalent weight larger sensor might endanger the 4/3rds cameras too."<br>

So far there is absolutely no proof of this happening. Camera system is more than just a body. Sony makes very small, and good, APS sesor compact cameras. But their lenses are DSLR size and huge in comparison. Apart from some pancake designs, it may well be impossible to make a selection of truly small, reasonably wide aperture lenses for APS size sensor cameras. And this is where m4/3 rules.<br>

Bigger sensor is always better. Newer sensor is also almost always better. When one chooses to use a m4/3 camera, or a similar small system, one accepts the disadvantage of a smaller sensor with the benefit of much smaller overall system size and weight. If this compromise is not acceptable, then one has to accept a much larger system, wtheter it is APS sized Sony NEX or a DSLR. Sensors get better over time. One can today accept a smaller sensor than just 2-3 years ago to give acceptable image quality for ones needs.</p>

<p>Focusing a 4x5 with a good loupe is pretty accurate. But if you focus it on two points and then estimate the average between those two points and manually focus it on that point, you are making quite big guesses already. And then adjusting the aperture to get those two opposite points into focus makes it even less accurate. So I don't see a problem following the same practice on a 35mm Nikon DSLR. Good manual focus lenses have good focusing helicoids. Something all AF lenses sorely miss. It should be easy enough to focus on the two opposite ends wide open on a fairly fast lens, even with the prism finder. Magnified live view would give even more accuracy. You get much more depth of field with the much shorter lenses that need to cover just that tiny sensor. But you cannot stop down too much, F/8 or F/11 is the smallest. Othewise you start to lose sharpness quickly to diffraction. With some subjects tilt/shift lens can be a great additional help. Schneider has several t/s lenses. I doubt Zeiss will ever make one. </p>

<p>One reason for the price is towards the bottom of your picture. If it was made in China, it would be a lot cheaper. Most likely a bit rougher as well and the distance scale could be off a bit. A few years ago I bought a complete 4x5 camera, quite similar to your model, Chinese made with a focusing mount, for quite a lot less than your price for just the Rodenstock helical.</p>

<p>It depends on where you live. Some places have a serious problem with humidity and therefore fungus. Playing around with silicagel packs and heating them in the oven is a joke in a place like that. What you need is a proper mains powered drying cabinet. Something like this:<br>

<a href="http://www.way-technovation.com/Dehumidifier/digicabi.htm">http://www.way-technovation.com/Dehumidifier/digicabi.htm</a><br>

For occasional or travel use there are also silicagel packs that have a mains plug and built in heating element. Something like this:<br>

<a href="http://www.homesteadcaravans.co.uk/rechargeable-dehumidifier-twin-pack/">http://www.homesteadcaravans.co.uk/rechargeable-dehumidifier-twin-pack/</a><br>

They can be put into a normal tight closing cabinet, or a big bag and recharged when they lose their mojo. They normally have a colourful indicator that shows when it is time to plug them in for a few hours.<br>

There are many manufacturers of the above cabinets and dry units. I have not tried the above two, they are just a result of a very quick web search and are meant to just illustrate what kind or products are available. I use similar things every day, living in tropical Asia with 90% humidity.</p>

<p>-</p><div></div>

<p>iOS is impossible for them and Android is extremely unlikely within 2-3 years. But if they would at least put it into a new top of the line Windows phone that would give it at least a small chance. This just shows that Nokia has completely lost their way and when someone gives them a GPS to show where to go they put it in the pocket without even turning it on still thinking that they are not lost.</p>

<p>I used the 2.8/35 Zuiko for many years on my OM-1 but sold it before I moved to digital. It was okay, but not a great lens in any way. Usually the slower speed version of all lenses is the cheap amateur model and the faster lens is the pro model with vastly higher price and at least somewhat better performance. So it is likely that the 2/35 Zuiko is better than the 2.8. The M Zeiss 35 is probably a very good lens, but it is built for a film rangefinder. I dont have that lens but I do have a somewhat similar Leica M 2/35. It does not work at all well on an m4/3 body. I believe these short M lenses sit too close to the sensor so that the light rays on the edges come at an acute angle and that does not suit digital nearly as well as film. Stopping downhelps a bit but not enough to make it good. Therefore SLR wide angle lenses seem to perform much better on mirrorless digital. Longer lenses do not have this problem and for example the CV75 is very good on the OM-D5, even wide open.</p>

<p>There is no issue and no problem. If your camera and lens were made in Japan, the price sticker would be much higher and you would not be happy to pay that price. Canon might still have some bodies and lenses made in Japan but they would be the top of the line models and cost maybe 10 times more than your camera and lens. You can of course complain to the shop and try to ask for discount. They should not misrepresent the goods they sell. But your camera is perfectly okay and as good as Canon can make it anywhere.</p>

<p>I might get one if it is available second hand in Japan at reasonable price after a year or so. I got the DP1 and it starts to show its age.</p>

<p>OMD and CV75mm. After I tried this combo I decided not to get the new 75mm M-Zuiko.</p><div></div>

I own the Lumix 1.7/20 and I can affirm it very useable wide open, extremely sharp by f2.8 in the center with only the corners lagging a

bit. The Zuiko 45mm f1.8 is universally regarded as an extremely sharp lens and very good value for money.

<p>Singapore</p><div></div>

<p>400 is a wildlife lens, and a pretty limiting at that for its slow speed. 70-200 is one of the most useful general purpose long lenses. From this you can guess which one I would take. Though I would prefer the F/4 version for lighter weight, or maybe even a good 70-300.</p>

<p>Quite different animals, I'm afraid. I have them both. The 45 on XPan is like 24 on normal 35mm film, but of course in panorama format. So the 15 is quite a lot wider. If you crop the 15 you get a very small negative that does not produce a good image. You can easily print 1m long (3ft) from the XPan. If you need a wider lens for that, there is of course the very expensive 30. If you print big, you need medium format, and that is what the XPan essentially is. So very much depends on what you want to do with your images.</p>

<p>It is silly to compare m4/3 system, which is built from the gound up to be as small as possible, and a full frame system on image quality. In the old days of film there was small format (24x36mm, today's full frame, ie. large format), and medium format (6x6 etc), and large format (4x5 and 8x10). One used the smallest size that gave enough image quality for the portability and speed required by the assignment. Nothing has changed. If you want a small camera, you get m4/3 or something similar. If you need maximum shooting and focus speed, you get an advanced APS DSLR. If you want better low light performance, you need to get a bigger sensor. If you need very big prints, you need either a full frame or medium format digital. There are no shortcuts. It is strange how people start to think that they can get everything in one package with no compromises, and then somebody complains that it is not as good as something totally different and two classes above it in size or price or usually both. Yes, 4/3 has become a bit of a dead end to Olympus. But m4/3 is the total opposite, it is the most accomplished and capable small system there is. To give up on m4/3 just because 4/3 did not live up to its promise is in my opinion equally silly.</p>

<p>Just to add a bit to the excellent advice above. Also lock white balance, ie select a preset, whether cloudy or sunny or custom. Just so that the camera does not start changing it for every frame. I would select a good quality jpeg as the image format. Of course raw can be used but it just adds another step and all images have to be processed the same. The wider the lens, the less images you need to stitch, but the lower the quality. Since the final image is for phone or iPad, the quality requirement is not that high. Whether or not you should use a pano head and adjust properly to pan around the lens nodal point depends on how close the closest parts of your image are. If you shoor far away landscapes or cityscapes it is not that critical, but if you include foreground interest it is next to impossible to get a good stitch unless you pan around the nodal point and this is difficult without a proper adjustable pano head. The Nikon platform shown in a post above does not meet this criteria. If you use one fixed focal length lens you can make a 'custom' bracket That moves the tripod screw close enough to under the lens nodal point and then any normal levelled tripod with pan control will do okay. Serious pano shooters like to turn the camera vertical to get more coverage but for this level of resolution it is not necessary and makes the whole process easier.</p>